Certainly. Even assuming the "we're doing it to call attention to the problem" line is sincere and not an ass-pull defense of a bad idea, it's not as if the Game Show Network is known for its sophisticated social commentary. Even if the show's being made with the best of intentions, it's a tough message to pull off in the format they've chosen.

(It'd be a good SNL sketch, though. Remember Who Wants to Eat?)

And even the sharpest satire attracts audience members who miss the point. How many people watched All in the Family and laughed with Archie instead of at him? And I'm comfortable in saying that this show's not going to be on the same level as All in the Family.

It could work; the reason it didn't work with Moviepass is that they (1) set the prices too low and (2) had no viable plan for making up the difference. It's the same old dotcom failure: step 3 is profit.

Under the right circumstances, a movie theater subscription service could turn a tidy profit. Alamo Drafthouse is talking about introducing one. Of course the key difference there is that Alamo Drafthouse owns the theaters and is not a third-party service, so it's already got a business model based on treating ticket prices as a loss leader.

When my wife and I go to the Drafthouse, we typically spend about a combined $40 on food and drinks (before tax and tip). I don't know what percentage of that is profit, but there's certainly a number Alamo could charge for a monthly subscription fee where the combined profits from the subscription and food/drink purchases would more than make up the loss in individual ticket sales, and I'm willing to bet that number is low enough that customers would be willing to pay it. (Hell, a lot of Alamo's business model as it is is showing old movies for nearly free. I think tickets to see Princess Bride were like $3 or something, and there's a showing of Horse Feathers in a week and a half that's free if you're a member of their rewards program. So they've clearly already spent some time crunching numbers on how to make a profit while giving tickets away for free, or next to it. Of course, I'm sure studios are asking for a lot less money for the rights to show Princess Bride or Horse Feathers than they are to show new releases -- but the point is, they've got experience figuring out where the sweet spot is where they can take a hit upfront and still turn a profit.)

I think Moviepass's value is going to turn out to be that (1) it demonstrated a demand for this kind of service and (2) it showed the potential pitfalls of offering one. I think we'll probably be seeing movie theater chains start to offer similar services and actually make money at it.

A chain like Alamo, where customers buy meals and beers, is clearly at an advantage compared to a typical popcorn-and-a-soda movie theater when it comes to working out how to profit while eating the cost of a ticket. But I'm betting some of the other chains like AMC and Cinemark can figure something out too.

Mostly anecdotal as I haven't looked into it too much yet, but I hear that AMC's version (at $20 a month?) is already pretty much a success for them, with none of the restrictions of Moviepass aside from needing to see your movies at an AMC. I'd love it if our local place offered something similar, since they tend to have much better crowds (and food) than AMC does.

Yeah, theatre chains deciding to cut out the middleman would have a much better chance at being profitable, but a lot of them are still resistant to changing their business model that dramatically. Then again, if a chain as big as AMC's keeping theirs, then it probably is only a matter of time before the others offer something similar.

Well, the big problem with MoviePass is basically that they weren't tied to the theaters at all. When you used MoviePass to see a movie, they paid the full cash value to the theater for your ticket. They were bleeding massive amounts of money, and actually ran completely out of money and had to borrow millions to pay for tickets a few days ago.

Their plan, apparently, was half to sell memberships to people who wouldn't end up using it that much - the health insurance model - and half to amass enough of a user base and represent enough of the movie-going populace to be able to squeeze theater chains for a cut of general admissions and a cut of concessions, on the basis that they're bringing the theaters more money than they'd be costing them. They tried that with AMC earlier in the year. It didn't work, AMC told them to screw off, and now they've got their A-List that's booming yeah.